kishnevi

Just think off all the trouble Einstein could have saved himself if his direct experience of the truth of relativity meant he didn't have to make arguments supporting his claim.

My assertion is there's no reason to think it does, and ample reason to think it's as hoaxy as it looks. As for your experience providing proof, you give me ample reason, in part by ignoring my question but mostly by the incoherence of the "true by belief" architecture, to doubt you have any idea what your experience means. You jumped to an implausible conclusion and don't care, as it serves your belief. Neither evidence nor the lack of it shakes you. You are not a reliable witness.

The faith based nature of your belief is evidenced in that last paragraph, since you have no knowledge of what my experience was/is, or why I draw the conclusion I did from it. You merely dismiss out of hand, because you have an a priori belief that God does not exist.

The faith based nature of your belief is evidenced in that last paragraph, since you have no knowledge of what my experience was/is, or why I draw the conclusion I did from it. You merely dismiss out of hand, because you have an a priori belief that God does not exist.

Whose fault is that? You give preposterous testimony and blame the recipient for not finding some excuse to believe your assertion. I know people deceive themselves like this, and about many other "experiences" of similar nature. Can we do alien kidnappings next? If you want to be believed say believable things or restrict your intended audience to your majority of smiling nodders. I'd be embarassed to invoke such a low standard. Why aren't you?

Whose fault is that? You give preposterous testimony and blame the recipient for not finding some excuse to believe your assertion. I know people deceive themselves like this, and about many other "experiences" of similar nature. Can we do alien kidnappings next? If you want to be believed say believable things or restrict your intended audience to your majority of smiling nodders. I'd be embarassed to invoke such a low standard. Why aren't you?

The primary deception, of yours, that I note is that "Our knowledge of what's true comes from what we observe and the application of reason to it" accounts for everything that exists in our reality.

The faith based nature of your belief is evidenced in that last paragraph

This is what I mean about the bullshitting of the faithy. Did you really mean to reveal your true opinion of "faith based" like this? What can I say but on this point you're right. By the same token my nonacceptance of your faithy standard can't be construed as faith-based, why that's silly "you too" style crap. You want to argue like that?

The primary deception, of yours, that I note is that "Our knowledge of what's true comes from what we observe and the application of reason to it" accounts for everything that exists in our reality.

That's incoherent. What knowledge do you have about what we have no knowledge of that would justify you saying that to me? Do you have knowledge of what isn't known? Are you a divine wizard. or do you merely want to be taken for one?

OK, I'll play, you're a wizard. Your track record stinks by the way, so you may want to reconsider.

kishnevi

Whose fault is that? You give preposterous testimony and blame the recipient for not finding some excuse to believe your assertion. I know people deceive themselves like this, and about many other "experiences" of similar nature. Can we do alien kidnappings next? If you want to be believed say believable things or restrict your intended audience to your majority of smiling nodders. I'd be embarassed to invoke such a low standard. Why aren't you?

I said I had a religious experience, and believe in God because of that. Nothing more than that.You then dismiss it without knowing anything about it. Faith based assertion.

Or are you saying I did not have a religious experience? Then you deny reality.

Your argument boils down to, I do not want to believe, so I will believe there is no evidence even though there is, and enough to make most of the human race decide God exists.

In fact, observing reality and deducing therefrom lead to the conclusion that it is a very rational thing to believe God exists.

I said I had a religious experience, and believe in God because of that. Nothing more than that.You then dismiss it without knowing anything about it. Faith based assertion.

Or are you saying I did not have a religious experience? Then you deny reality.

I don't deny the reality that people have experiences of the kind you had. You had it. What I'm saying is these experiences don't establish god entities or ghost entities or Pazuzu entities or Martian Bat-Rat-Spider entities (awesome as the latter are!) just because you leap to that explanation without bothering with more plausible ones first.

Anyway, as I pointed out before, what entitles you to faith-based assertions and not me? It's my rule that it violates, obviously not yours or you wouldn't violate it so recklessly.

If faith based assertions are not valid why would anyone defend them against my (heh!) "faith-based" assertions that they're not?

All we need to cut this knot is for everyone to agree that the invalidity of faith based propositions/entities applies across the board, and that objecting to the faith based metric can't logically be itself faith based. Alles Klar? By golly we've done it! *

I do not think anyone claimed that scientific discoveries or theories (like Einstein's) could be gained by "pure intuition". Rather, there is a body of knowledge like maths, logics and a few other very general principles (also of morals) that logically precede empirical knowledge. Until the 18th century most thinkers in most cultures believed that some "natural theology" also belonged to that kind of knowledge. It's not necessarily "innate" but it can be established by reflection on very general features of the world we experience or on very general principles we need in any case to establish any knowledge at all. Therefore the core of such "metaphysical" knowledge is not to be understood as idle speculation, neither can it be in contradiction to empirical science.

But it cannot be "disproved" by empirical science as empirical science cannot disprove mathematics. It could merely show that a certain type of mathematical scheme would not be applicable to a certain domain of empirical nature but to argue for something like that the scientist would certainly have to use forms of logic (and probably also mathematics), therefore again has to presuppose the validity of some bits of non-empirical knowledge.

But it can probably be safely said that it is very hard to derive specific ideas about afterlife, punishments, karmic retributions etc. from general metaphysics or "natural theology" (unlike arguments for a "prime mover", "Absolute Being" or sth. like that). This was largely the domain of "revealed knowledge" and religious thinkers would try to show that it is compatible with the more general metaphysical framework that could be established from reason alone.

(For me as a layman it is also fascinating how unspecific and inconsistent e.g. the christian scriptures are with respect to "afterlife" etc. Most of the new testament is much more concerned with eschatology, i.e. the End of the World (as we know it) and the Kingdom of God was expected to come very soon and not the end of individual lives, immortal souls etc. It took a thousand years of theology to arrive at Dante's sophisticated model of hell, purgatory and heaven.)

Logged

Struck by the sounds before the sun,I knew the night had gone.The morning breeze like a bugle blewAgainst the drums of dawn.(Bob Dylan)

The tautologies of mathematics might be said to be tools rather than entities. Tools have use value, which is empirical. But I differ somewhat from other pragmatists, though not all, in my view that mathematics is as empirical in its origin as any use valued scheme can be. The logical priority of mathematics to empirical truth processes is less important than the fact that our counting bootstrapped us into mathematical knowledge. We counted, then developed rules from that.

To paraphrase the great philosopher Slim Charles, my pragmatism is always pragmatism, it just got more fierce!

My intelligence tells me that Beethoven is a greater artist than Britney Spears, and that murdering babies is wrong. Since reason had nothing to do with those realizations, than it means that intelligence cannot be reduced to reason alone, if intelligence is to mean anything....

Ah, but there is reason on your side, which is mine also.

1. The music of Beethoven is far more complex than that of Ms. Spears or her "handlers," and draws a more complex response from listeners who, on the whole, have greater experience with more kinds of music.

2. Murdering babies tends toward the extinction of the species, or at least toward lessened vitality since it reduces the available genetic pool.

1. The music of Beethoven is far more complex than that of Ms. Spears or her "handlers," and draws a more complex response from listeners who, on the whole, have greater experience with more kinds of music.

2. Murdering babies tends toward the extinction of the species, or at least toward lessened vitality since it reduces the available genetic pool.

Quod erat demonstrat.

Yes, I agree. Values are not facts, but if they go willy nilly in denial of facts or take incoherent and obscure stances as a pseudo-foundation, so that we've presumed to be moral out of fear of an avenging monster, our values will decay from flawed attribution. Nothing is moral because a god made it so. That was the greatest thing Plato (as Socrates) was right about, ultimately only we can decide what's right. If murder is wrong can a god make it right? Plato destroyed that argument for eternity, good job!

Murdering babies tends toward the extinction of the species, or at least toward lessened vitality since it reduces the available genetic pool.

CONSISTENT ATHEIST: So what? Who says that the conservation of the species or an increased vitality is good or should be promoted? After all, we come from nothingness and go into nothingness, so ultimately nothing that we do is of any importance whatsoever. Stalin is no worse than Mother Theresa, nor is St. Francis of Assisi any better than Ted Bundy.

Logged

I compose music because I must give expression to my feelings, just as I talk because I must give utterance to my thoughts. --- Rachmaninoff

People, experts on what they want, say they want an idea of goodness to govern them. It's true of atheists and theists alike. We decide, even if we try to offload it onto a fantasy it's our fantasy. Like Plato taught, his great lesson, there is no escape from this judgement, to a god or a computer or any outside authority. Morality is intrinsically Our Business.

CONSISTENT ATHEIST: So what? Who says that the conservation of the species or an increased vitality is good or should be promoted? After all, we come from nothingness and go into nothingness, so ultimately nothing that we do is of any importance whatsoever. Stalin is no worse than Mother Theresa, nor is St. Francis of Assisi any better than Ted Bundy.

Well, perhaps there is need for a few axioms whose self-evidence seems evident, if not to all, then to most...

snyprrr

People, experts on what they want, say they want an idea of goodness to govern them. It's true of atheists and theists alike. We decide, even if we try to offload it onto a fantasy it's our fantasy. Like Plato taught, his great lesson, there is no escape from this judgement, to a god or a computer or any outside authority. Morality is intrinsically Our Business.

could you tell me where exactly this thread has gone....?.... I can't even keep up.... oy!!